96 Elephants On A Slippery Slope

I heard on the radio this morning of a terrible problem requiring my immediate attention. Ninety-six elephants are killed daily for the ivory in their tusks.

• Stop the killing with on-the-ground anti-poaching efforts;
• Stop the trafficking using intelligence and law enforcement;
• Stop the demand by increasing awareness among consumers.
  

That's the program of the African Wildlife Foundation – at least as it applies to elephants.

The International Fund for Animal Welfare adds

In Africa, elephants are being slaughtered at unprecedented levels to feed the insatiable global demand for ivory. Americans are among the largest consumers of this cruel luxury, but by pledging not to buy ivory jewelry, trinkets or any other ivory product, we can serve as an example to the world and help protect elephants for the generations yet to come.

There are several other organizations that support the same goal, and the point they make is one that merits our consideration. But it also raises questions that are similarly worth discussion. The first involves our determination to “serve as an example to the world and help protect elephants for the generations yet to come.” And the obvious question is “Why?” Have we an obligation to the generations yet to come, or are we opposed to the cruelty of the “slaughter” for the purpose of providing Americans with a “cruel luxury.”

Additional thought should be given to the economic implications, especially to poor African countries that benefit from the trade. As well as to the joy of those fashion-minded individuals who covet the beautiful objects that are produced from ivory. The consequences also merit thought. I don't propose to discuss those consequences – any of them – but to put forward additional questions that come to mind as I ponder the concerns of these funds.

Are we only to protect elephants? And is our concern only for their tusks? Would we be interested in protecting these mammals if they didn't make ivory? What is the implication of such an idea on the sale of furs, or leather, or, for that matter, on wool and silk? There are many who oppose the use of any animal products – meat, dairy products, eggs, and honey, for example – as exploitation of non-human species for our benefit. Isn't their claim just as valid? And should we eliminate zoos? I'm not sure, however, that generations yet to come would support such an idea. Especially those generations that live where there are no elephants, and who lack the resources necessary to see them otherwise.

I wonder as well about our obligation to protect elephants and other wildlife from their enemies in the wild. While elephants have few natural enemies, they occasionally fall prey to lions, tigers, crocodiles, and hyenas. If we protect elephants from humans, shouldn't we defend them against other predators as well? And shouldn't we protect other animals, including oppressed people, from their natural enemies? Do we need this idea to condemn slavery? Were we justified in fighting the Nazis simply because they made use of human possessions and human bodies? (Is this a variation of Godwin's Law?)

Have I entered the world of reductio ad absurdum? Is this a “slippery slope” argument? Are we capable of compartmentalizing particular issues, or must we view them merely as points on a spectrum? Can we draw lines that separate the individual elements and their implications from what appear to be analogous issues, or do the lines we draw connect those issues? (A similar question might be raised about the law in general. Are jurists incapable of distinguishing between right and wrong in individual cases? Must they base their decisions on precedents?)

Fear of the slippery slope pervades many of our other arguments. For example, isn't the restriction of sale of automatic weapons in general, especially to known terrorists, certain to lead to a prohibition on all weapons for every law-abiding citizen? The NRA would certainly argue so. Don't sugared drinks lead to obesity? Many have that view and would outlaw them because some obese people are diabetic. Are we incapable of finding other solutions to the problem? If it is a problem. Is a court decision to permit the medical treatment of an ill child whose Christian Science parents oppose it going to lead to elimination of the Freedom of Religion? If we permit capital punishment, shouldn't we also permit abortion, even at term? And vice versa?

When the ACLU defended neo-Nazi marchers in Skokie, Illinois, they claimed they were defending Freedom of Speech because if it is lost to those who abuse it, it is lost to everybody. But they were wrong. We have “hate speech” laws now but we still have a First Amendment. I abhor those laws and I'm free to say so. I'm convinced that (most) people are able to compartmentalize, to decide right and wrong on the merits of the case, and not be compelled to take a particular position because of precedents and similarity to prior cases. Only conspiracy theorists and lawyers take an all or nothing approach.

I oppose killing elephants for their tusks, but I'm not concerned that it inevitably means that I have to give up steak. I may be wrong, however I think that these issues and others can be separated.

Fools And Hypocrites

According to what I just heard on the radio, tomorrow's Power Ball jackpot is up to one and a half billion dollars. Quite a bit. It's approaching a billion dollars more than the highest jackpot to date. As of the moment that's more than the budgets of six nations, and in all likelihood it will exceed more before the drawing.

You're not likely to win (the odds are over 292 million to one against you) but someone, or several people, probably will. But with the payoff far greater than 292 million to one, the odds are in your favor. All it takes is “a dollar and a dream.” (Actually I think the cost of a ticket is two dollars, but the risk/benefit ratio, if you can afford it, is in your favor. Even if it's three.) Fantasy conquers reality.

Let's forget about the odds, though. The nation has invested a billion and a half dollars in fantasy. And for what? The individual states decide how to use the profits and, for the most part, it's funneled into a variety of state needs. Various states tout the use for education, but the reality is that America doesn't educate all that well (in a survey of math and science grades – the ones that tell us how we'll do in our future development as compared to other countries – we ranked 28^th) despite the fact that we spend the most per pupil. Mostly, though, I suspect the money is used to cover a range of budgetary shortfalls and pork-barrel projects. And since lotteries are popular among those with a lower income (it's not all that hot among the fabled one percent who know better) it's a tax on those least able to pay it (of course no one forces them to buy tickets).

Also in the news is the latest installment of Star Wars. It's gross, after only three and a half weeks, is approaching two billion dollars world-wide. And when you consider the “franchise” of Star Wars movies you're close to seven billion. So far. That, however, isn't the record for either a single movie or a franchise – Avatar leads in the former category and the Harry Potter series in the latter. More examples of the triumph of fantasy.

And fantasy also takes precedence over human needs. I heard an advertisement this morning – a solicitation for a charity that claimed to help children with cleft palate and other facial deformities. They stated that they can bless such a child with a smile for about sixty dollars. People, however, would rather look at imaginary monsters with hideous faces than help those with real problems. Seven billion dollars would go a long way in easing the lives of the unfortunate.

But people are concerned with reality in some ways. Their own appearance is worth spending money. The Coen brothers released a movie entitled Burn After Reading that told the story of the lengths that a woman went to to get the money for surgery that would improve her appearance. Several people died as a result of her quest. The movie may have been intended as a farce, but Americans enriched the cosmetics industry with more than sixty billion dollars last year. (That doesn't include the costs in money and time spent on plastic surgery.) They did it in the belief that they could look younger or better with the help of some concoction available in their pharmacy or other store. Fantasy.

And that is where society finds itself. Rather than deal with real problems which others may face, we focus on ourselves – physically, financially, and in terms of our imaginations. We consider the chance of winning for ourselves rather than the chance of helping someone else. Our own amusement and our own appearance are paramount. Our imaginations and our fantasies are our primary concerns.

We're fools if we believe that. And hypocrites if we demand that others help the afflicted while we don't do so ourselves.

The Only Question

Note: This was begun a little over a year ago but I just found it on my computer. Please pardon the old news (an oxymoron, isn't it?). Also note that it was from the time I used end notes, so I'll continue with them as I finish this essay. And if the content is similar to that in one or more of my other essays, I'm sorry. I'm only conveying last year's thoughts.

I heard on the radio yesterdayⁱ that the odds on the Chicago Cubs winning the World Series in 2015 had dropped from one in forty to one in twelve. It seems that they had just spent one hundred fifty-five million dollars on a long term contract for pitcher Jon Lester and the team was expected to do far better with him on board. Ticket prices will also probably go up but I don't care. I'm a Mets fan, and I live in New York. (Anyway, an important question it raises – one for another time, though – is “What is reality?” Dealing with this situation, we all know that whatever the Cubs do they don't have a chance. They can spend all the money they want, or have – or hope to have, but a World Series win will always be out of their reach.ⁱⁱ The Mets, on the other hand, ...ⁱⁱⁱ)

(There was also a story about an asteroid that will pass within three million miles of earth^iv in 2047. The likelihood that I'll be around then is moderately low, so I'm not too worried about that either. At least not yet.)

Today's news had such important items items as these. There are other stories that have been in the news recently and they've made me think about all manner of things – some important and some of no consequence.

News reporting is supposed to raise questions. Depending on the nature of the reports the questions may be different. Variation will also relate to the perspective of the questioner. The poor, for example, ask different questions from the rich – questions sometimes echoed by their supporters, and even by people who think they are poor. The strident controversy involving the Occupy Wall Street Movement, its participants, and its spinoffs, typifies this kind of a situation. And I want to spend a little time discussing some of the issues that relate to particular groups. (But I won't bother with Wall Street. It's too much a matter of fad and fashion rather than substance. I'm more interested in controversies that are less populist-driven and will be around longer.)^v

So let me illustrate my point that different populations have different concerns and different questions by citing two controversies that seemingly involve relatively few people. At least directly. (But they really concern us all.) Both have been the sources for debate and disagreement – often vehement. They raise the a very basic question. The first deals with the right of citizens to refuse to pay for activities that they oppose. We've probably all read of instances when a citizen protested the use of his tax money for the military. He didn't believe in war – or perhaps a specific war – and chose to withhold that part of his taxes that would be credited to the Defense Department. He considered the tax a violation of his religion.

The second controversy regards the rights of individuals with gender dysphoria. At least one court has ruled that such people are entitled to use whatever rest room was most comfortable for them.^vi Their gender preference was accompanied by what was determined to be a constitutional right to express it by rest room choice.^vii

The stories are very different, and the matters that they raise as well. But there are some questions they raise that apply equally in both cases, as well as in numerous other contexts, and I shall try to discuss them. If I am successful it will become obvious that there is a single uncertainty – a single issue – which has to be considered irrespective of the scenario, if those problems are to be fully understood. And I am acutely aware of the difficulty faced. I know the question. But I don't know the answer.

Perhaps I don't know the answer because I'm not a lawyer, let alone a Supreme Court Justice, but the question involves the rights of our citizens. The Constitution – specifically the Bill of Rights – guarantees us certain freedoms and protections. One is the assurance that an individual's beliefs and religious practices are outside the ambit of Congress's power to legislate or control. The meaning of that freedom, like the meaning of the entire Constitution, is the subject of many interpretations and differences of opinion. Without discussing and dissecting them, without arguing about whether the interpretation should depend upon what those who formulated it said or what (we believe) they meant, our government and our courts have taken the approach (in terms of taxes for the military) that individuals cannot decide for themselves that they will not pay for the defense of our country, even if their religion seems threatened. We similarly don't allow an atheist to opt out of taxes that fund a chaplain for Congress. And we permit tax exemptions for religious institutions. We have chosen a practical, and politically acceptable, solution to the problem. Perhaps we “understand” our position to reflect what the Founders believed and wrote, but the reality is that we “understand” the original document to say whatever we believe, notwithstanding any claim that it actually represents the intent of those who wrote it.

When it comes to gender dysphoria, however, the debate centers not on the “rights” of one group, but two, the first comprised of those who suffer from dysphoria and who wish everyone else to accept their new identity – after all, their gender is a private matter^viii – and accord it the recognition due one with a similar identity from birth. The second group includes those who believe their own rights are compromised when individuals who are unhappy with the sex into which they were born invade their privacy. The courts have adopted the position that the rights of the dysphoric take precedence over those of the euphoric. They can decide for themselves. It is hard to understand this to have been the position of the Founders since it is unlikely that they would have even given the concept any thought. Irrespective of any claims by members of the judiciary, the subject is not covered in the Constitution, no matter how you construe its words. But the bench has chosen sides and must find justification for it.

The basic uncertainty – and it will remain so for a long time – revolves around our rights as American citizens. It involves the question of beliefs, religious and otherwise. It is a basic constitutional issue. It bothered the Founders, and it was a question that they thought they had solved with the Bill of Rights. Both scenarios I have cited involve those rights and beliefs but suggest that we'll solve the questions day by day. Or, actually, they'll be decided for us.

The concept of gender dysphoria is a matter of deeper and more consequential belief than the Cubs winning a World Series, and that's saying something. People hope and pray for the Cubs. But they know that the ultimate outcome is out of their control. Not so those unhappy with their physiognomy, who prefer to take their beliefs and their sex into their own hands.

I        December 10, 2014.

ii       Actually the Cubs did pretty well last season. In fact they nearly made it to the World Series. “Nearly,” of course is the key word, and their failure to “close the deal” typifies their fate. “Wait 'til next year?” Don't bother. It won't help.

iii      Alright. They didn't win either. But they got closer.

iv      From an astronomical point of view that's apparently a “near-miss.” Actually it sounds to me more like a “near hit.”

v        It's a year later and I haven't heard much about it recently. People are protesting other things nowadays.

vi  https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/maine-high-court-orders-school-to-open-girls-restrooms-to-transgendered-boy

vii      More cases have been litigated subsequently with varied results.

viii     “Privacy,” though not ever found in the Constitution, is “understood” to be there by a majority of the Supreme Court. It is a Constitutional right. They are what they believe themselves to be.

A Virtual Life

http://gothamist.com/2016/01/06/fair_lawn_high_school_palestine_twe.php

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/07/nyregion/anti-israel-tweets-land-new-jersey-student-in-principals-office.html?_r=0

https://www.rt.com/usa/328218-new-jersey-bullying-tweets/

The articles cited above appeared in the last day or so. They emphasize several things: the anti-Israel attitude of the Tweeter, the right to free speech, and the concept of bullying. While I don't think that any of these is the real problem, let me comment on them first. Briefly. Very briefly. Her attitude – not unusual for a protected, idealistic, but immature and ignorant (I know some will be offended by my “judgmental” use of the words) teen-ager; free speech – she's entitled to it however offensive her remarks may be to some (“If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all.” -Noam Chomsky, linguistics professor and political activist. He'd probably be a staunch supporter of her views.); bullying – too silly a suggestion to warrant response.

If those were the issues I shouldn't waste my time writing about them, but they're not. I'm sad for the girl, but it's not because of any of the questions I've mentioned. I'm saddened because I suspect that she believes she is performing a public service, and that her words will save the world, or at least demonstrate her “virtue” to everyone. I'm saddened because I think that she is wasting her life in the quest. It's not the subject of her Tweets that concerns me. Whether I agree or disagree with her opinion is irrelevant. And I know there are many others who have expressed the same opinion more publicly and to greater effect. Her words are falling mainly on the screens of like-minded, and equally virtuous, teen-agers, and on the screens of those who will disagree with her vigorously. In the long run, however, they will have no effect and will be soon forgotten.

Of greater concern to me than the message (and, I hope it is of concern to her parents and her school as well) is the messenger. Twitter. And her drowning in it.

According to one of the articles she has sent over 21,000 messages since last February. That's eleven months. About 330 days. Sixty-four or so posts a day. Every day. And it wouldn't surprise me if she reads the messages of others. According to one of the reports she has over 7,000 followers, and many of them probably respond to her Tweets.

She probably follows other posters as well. And reads Facebook. And the other social networks. With eating, sleeping, and school I doubt that she has much time for anything else. And I wonder how much all of this costs her and her parents for access fees, the device itself, and whatever else. I wonder whether she has a real life beyond what she reads on the screen in her hand. She, those who follow her, and those she follows, live vicariously by reaching out to others to whom they may never speak. They substitute what they read about others for their own actions and lives. And by doing so they sacrifice their lives for the privilege.

Another concern of mine relates to the thin skin of the individual who accused her of bullying. But even more so for those who took such a complaint seriously. Our society has become so controlled by the idea of “sensitivity” to the perceived feelings of all its members – to the concepts of offense, and “hate speech” – that we censor the words of others and self-censor our own views so as not to cause discomfort to anyone. Our desire to be “correct” is more harmful to free speech than the words we fear. I can only hope that with time we'll get over this silliness.

The issue of greatest anxiety to me, however, is the fact that the subject of the investigation secretly recorded her conversation with school authorities. It's easy to do nowadays, and it's encouraged by lawyers who want evidence of every “wrong” which may lead to an action. We ourselves have adopted this attitude and this technique even when we don't know how we might use what we obtain. And we certainly use it when we can foresee a use. What better to post than an interaction with an “authority?” It's a technique of tyrants, as well as lawyers, to secretly obtain information about people's views, though they may put that knowledge to a different, and more sinister, use. Nothing is a greater cause of care in what we say, nor inhibits free speech more, than the fear that our words may be used against us by others.

My own concern is not what is happening to the girl who is the center of this dispute, but what she is doing to herself. And I am even more troubled by what we are all doing to ourselves, and to the society in which we live. She has the right to live a virtual life if she so chooses, but she has no right to impose her life on us and make us live in fear.

See For Yourself

Look! Off in the distance. I don't believe it. It's Elvis. He's coming towards me. I'm sure of it. But they say he died years ago. I think it was 1977. I didn't believe it then and I don't believe it now. Certainly not since that time several years ago when I saw him from the train I was on. It was going fairly quickly but I'm sure I saw him through a restaurant window. He was eating with Amelia Earhart and Judge Crater. There was no doubt about it, however the next stop was in a city many miles from where I had seen him, so there was no going back. This time, though, he's coming toward me so I'll meet him and have a chance to speak to him. What an opportunity.

He's coming closer. I still can't make out the details. He's carrying something. Must be his guitar. This is great. And today's his birthday. I knew the King didn't die.

He's closer now. And a little clearer. That thing in his hand is probably a shopping bag rather than a guitar case, but there's no question in my mind that it's Elvis.

It's not Elvis. He's much closer now and I can see his build and his face. And his bald head. It's Harry Perkanovich from down the block. Must have been sent out shopping by his wife. From up close he doesn't look at all like Elvis. And I can tell you from the time my wife and I visited his house that he's not musical. He tried playing a song for us when we were there, but the comb and the tissue paper sounded awful. Almost as bad as his voice. His only talent is for making us suffer. (Of course we complimented him.) But from a distance I could have sworn he was my favorite singer. I was certain it was Elvis. I used to be a big fan of his.

You see what you want to see. And if some information is lacking, you fill it in. Most of us deal better with certainty than doubt. And seeing someone or something from a distance provides the opportunity. I suspect that the phenomenon is common. We see what we want to see and what we're prepared to see. Or, often, what we expect to see or what we're told we'll see. Any lawyer knows that an “eye witness” is only reliable if his testimony supports the case. Otherwise there are numerous explanations for his obvious error.

And the same is true of hearing. Hear a snippet of a conversation and you can recreate the whole thing. Whether that's what was said or not. Even if you mis-hear something, what you think you heard becomes fact. Have you ever played “Telephone?”

We can't trust our memories either – consider déjà vu for example. The problem becomes obvious when we compare recollections with those of someone else who shared an experience but remembers it very differently from the way that we do. One of us is wrong. (Or maybe both of us.) Yet when we're not comparing notes there won't be any doubt in either of our minds that we remember exactly what happened. For some, the precision and the detail of the memory become more clear with each retelling of the event.

And for some, any later documentation – a photograph, or the report of someone else – is likely to be added to the memory and reported subsequently as something that is remembered clearly as a first-hand observation. It's not a lie, but a trick of the mind. And it's another potential source of misinformation that may bedevil a legal proceeding. Even if witnesses and jury members are cautioned against the consideration of any information they may have heard or seen about the events at issue, the possibility exists that material of just that sort will be incorporated into the witness's memory or into the juror's knowledge base and affect the outcome of the trial.

Another example of implanted memory is the result of hypnosis, especially “past life regression” and “recovered-memory therapy,” where what is brought up as an unshakable memory may result from suggestion or from incidental unrelated knowledge the subject may have.

What it all boils down to is that our senses, minds, and our memories are less than perfect. Yet we don't doubt them. We often rely on them to the exclusion of “reality.” That's usually a mistake, but not always. Fortunately there are times when we're right and “reality” is nothing more than what the majority incorrectly remember. Perhaps this time it was Perkanovich rather than Presley, but I know that Elvis is still alive.

Happy Birthday.

The American Way

According to yesterday's Wall Street Journal (January 4, 2016), in an article written by Siobhan Hughes,

“[T]he House is expected to vote on a measure to defund Planned Parenthood and repeal part of the Affordable Care Act. The measure, which already passed the Senate as part of a procedure known as reconciliation, is expected to be vetoed by President Barack Obama.”

Predictable, but welcome. Not that I either oppose or favor Planned Parenthood or the Affordable Care Act (I have strong feelings on both subjects but they're not pertinent here – indeed, they're impertinent) but the procedure itself (an over-ride debate and vote following a presidential veto) is one that has been functioning for a long time but is ow all but dead. President Obama is the first President since Lyndon Johnson not to have a veto over-ridden.

Congress doesn't work, and we're all paying the penalty for that. We live under a system that favors politics over policy. There's no room for compromise. Congress has been paralyzed, and when different parties control the House an the Senate it is unlikely that any controversial legislation will be passed. Even when, as is true now, one party has a majority in both houses, the need for a “filibuster-proof” majority in the Senate (sixty votes – virtually unattainable) to end any threat of an endless harangue, makes it unlikely to happen. Virtually all the issues boil down to a clash of ideologies between the parties, and sometimes within them. Believing themselves to be warriors for “right” and “truth,” those with strong opinions are unwilling to compromise with “evil.” And they are also unwilling to allow what they view as wrongheaded bills to be passed. They'll use the virtue they see in their obstinacy “courage” in the next election campaign as what they expect to be a selling point.

Sometimes, however, what is being debated has, in their minds, some positive features. They're happy to compromise on those proposals, as long as the opposition accedes to their most cherished views. That, unfortunately, is the goal of the other party as well. So the result is often – though not invariably – a stalemate.

As noted above, another tool of a minority in the Senate is the filibuster. Noble in purpose but subject to abuse, this tool has changed over time. As Common Cause puts it,

“American government is based on the principle of majority rule. But in the U.S. Senate, a minority has turned that principle upside down. The filibuster rule, designed to protect the minority's right to be heard, has been transformed into a weapon that allows just 41 of 100 senators to squelch debate and block action on any bill, no matter its importance or public support.”

Originally a filibusterer had to speak continuously, and the Senate could not take up any other business during such an action. It took a great deal of effort and dedication for a Senator to undertake such a tactic. It was serious business. But now, the Senate

“made it significantly easier to filibuster by adopting rules that allow other business to be conducted while a filibuster is, technically, underway. Since 1975, senators have not needed to stand up on the floor and make their case to their colleagues and their constituents in order to halt legislation. Instead, these “virtual filibusters” can be conducted in absentia.” (nolabels.org)

It's easier now. No effort is needed. It's a great political maneuver at virtually no cost

Apart from convictions, there are other reasons for this self-imposed congressional impotence, but I'll focus on just one. That is the desire to protect the President. If a bill never reaches the President, he doesn't have to veto it. And for legislation that may have broad constituent support, it is beneficial to not be forced to go against the people who elected you.

That, however, in addition to thwarting both congressional and popular wishes, eliminates some of the benefits which might be gained by an end to the protection against the need for a veto. A minority that knows it can defeat any attempt to pass legislation not in keeping with its views, or those of its leader, has little inducement to negotiate and look for a middle ground. If they can prevent their opponents from having their way, why compromise? In addition, this may harden the position of the majority, making them appear to be intransigent. By doing so, however, they might present voters with a clear issue for the next election – but this issue can be muddied by presidential rhetoric.

Since the President gets far more press coverage than any member of Congress, his message will be spread to all voters. That message will probably include the accusation that Congress is unable to accomplish anything, which is just what a minority would like the American People to hear and believe. It's the minority's hope that promises to “make Congress work” will be their path to becoming the majority.

And in addition to accusations of congressional incompetence and inaction, the President will sign Executive Orders to authorize the actions he wants – irrespective of the preferences of Congress and the voters. Presidents do this anyway, whether or not such action is authorized by the Constitution, but in this case he can shift the blame to Congress.

It all boils down to congressional weakness and the presidential acquisition of power. And a change in the filibuster rules which make it easy to avoid responsibility. Like a Senate hold on an appointee or on other legislation (which effectively confers veto power on a senator), the filibuster puts too much power in the hands of individuals and minorities. Such senatorial rules as these – not specified in the Constitution – make us all pay for political actions of the few.

Congress doesn't work. But the problems are not insoluble unless we allow them to be so. Congress can become stronger and more effective if it wants to be. They made their own rules and they can change them – if we force them to.

Rich And Poor

The greatest spread between rich and poor was recorded in 2015.

And before that in 2014.

And 2013.

In fact, all humans started out as equal. If, at the time that our species appeared, all were similarly involved in obtaining sustenance and working to survive, and there was no concept of currency or wealth, it is obvious that the economic spread has been increasing from the very beginning. Everyone started poor, and many remain so. The Bible (Deuteronomy 15:11) tells us “For destitute people will not cease to exist within the Land.” Now, however, there is an economic hierarchy – not simply a single level of poverty.

Why did this happen? Why are there rich and poor? We tend to attribute it to inherited wealth and the oppression of the poor by those with property and money. But that situation did not always obtain. Once we all were poor. In times we can only imagine, some became wealthy while others did not.

Perhaps the causes for this were brute strength and theft. Perhaps people were not equal in all respects but there were differences in, among other things, physical power and avarice. History has certainly shown this to be the case. Warriors and greedy people have established religious, political, and economic empires by force, and they have often passed them on to their children, or to others who shared their philosophy. That might be the case – indeed, it is undeniable that this happened – but it isn't the entire story, and leaves several questions unanswered.

For example, does that explain all the differences? If inheritance is the cause of inequality, is it justified? Should there be equality and socialism?

But more important, is it all really true? Are the rich well-off because of inheritance? Is there such a thing as incentive? Should there be a reward for improvement? People are, by nature, competitive. There are winners and losers. Should that normal impulse be reinforced, ignored, or penalized?

It is noteworthy that the truly rich, people like Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg, didn't inherit their wealth. Actually “65% of the world’s UHNW individuals are self-made.” (businessinsider.com) The UHNW (Ultra High Net Worth) group, which includes various entertainment and sports figures, the computer pioneers, assorted inventors, numerous entrepreneurs, and those who invest in their projects, are a large part of the folks we love to hate and blame (anyone better off than we are). Yet less than twenty percent are living solely off inherited riches. Put otherwise, the vast majority are rich because of their looks, talent, ideas, hard work, and willingness to take risks. And luck. That's doesn't fit the image of the one percent so often reviled. The ones we envy. (Interestingly, in 2013, the last year from which I have figures, the most rapidly growing UHNW economies were Pakistan, Nigeria, Sri Lanka, Kenya, and the United Arab Republics. There are others we can hate besides our fellow Americans.) It is individual creativity, incentive, and hard work that have caused humanity to reach its current state. People want to advance and should be encouraged to do so.

It is a common, though regrettable, characteristic of humans that whatever problems we have we consider the fault of someone else. We're not responsible. That's not to say that there isn't some truth to this view. We're not all equal, and there are some who are better looking, more muscular, more creative, or intellectually superior to others, and they have used their gifts to succeed. Nor can it be denied that there are, among the rich, some who capitalize on their position to exercise control over those who are less fortunate. But if all members of Homo sapiens started out on the same rung of the economic ladder, if there are differences now, somewhere along the line the sorting must have taken place because of someone's talent, hard work, and willingness to take risks. That's true even in families with inherited wealth.

Of course society has the obligation to provide for the needy. Whether the need is for food, medical care, shelter, or something else, we cannot deny our responsibility for the “destitute people [who] will not cease to exist within the Land.” Ideally though, the necessary assistance will be provided by all of us voluntarily, and philanthropic endeavors by some of the “super-rich,” Gates, Zuckerberg, Buffett, Rockefeller, and Carnegie among them, are noteworthy in this regard. The foundations they established have offered substantial assistance to those in need. (Indeed, they have aided us all.) But there are times, sadly too many, when compulsory assistance, derived from more fortunate taxpayers, is required because voluntary help is insufficient. And when it is necessary there should be no hesitation in providing it.

Charity, however, as exemplified by government support, though it may serve as a necessary bridge, is not the answer. It promotes and rewards dependence. Independence is a better solution. Philanthropy – the provision of funds to establish conditions that will allow the needy to thrive and to enrich themselves using their own talents and hard work – is more likely to furnish a continuing benefit for recipients and their children. It's far better to help those in need to succeed, than to aid them in failure. In his discussion of charity, Maimonides (twelfth century) wrote that “The greatest level [of charity], above which there is no greater, is to … strengthen his hand [that of the needy person] until he need no longer be dependent upon others.” Someone else, probably more recent despite the claims regarding Lao Tzu, phrased it differently: “Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.” And by his efforts in whatever field he chooses he may even become wealthy.

There is a responsibility as well, therefore, of the needy to find ways to improve themselves. Success is certainly not assured, but there is still the possibility of going from rags to riches. Or at least to self-sufficiency. However it requires effort. Society is duty-bound to provide the conditions for success. Those who desire advancement, though, must invest themselves and their ideas in seeking it.